2010 (8) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the credit was wrongly availed and it was reversed on being pointed out by the Audit. Being so, taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 14 of the said Rules merely because it remained unutilised till the last date of financial year in which it was wrongly availed would not be a ground to contend that the appellants are not liable to pay interest.  
JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. ORDER Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President - These matters are heard pursuant to the order passed in Stay Applications No. 367/2010 and 368/2010. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the SDR for the respondent. Since a common questions of law and facts arise in both these matters, they were heard together and are bein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 05 as well as 31st March 2006 in respective cases and therefore, there was no justification for demand of interest in relation to unutilised Cenvat credit. 6. Learned SDR on the other hand drawing our attention to Rule 14 as well as to the Circular No.897/17/2009-CX., dated 3-9-2009 of the Board submitted that the provision of law does not make difference between the availment and utilisation of the credit as far as liability to pay interest on delayed reversal of such credit is concerned and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. She further submitted that the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was in relation to Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which is not a pari materia with the provisions of law com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the credit was wrongly taken, till the date of payment of such amount". 9. Obviously, the liability to pay interest under Rule 57-I was linked to the wrongful availment on account of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Provisions apparently disclose that the intention to pay duty was essential ingredient to warrant demand of interest at the time of reversal of wrongly availed modvat credit in terms of the provisions comprised under Rule 57-I (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That is not the case in relation to Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court is essentially w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X